Health Ombudsman v Harirchian

[2021] QCA 141

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Professions and Trades
2. › Health Care Professionals
3. › Medical Practitioners
4. › Disciplinary Proceedings
5. › Immediate registration action
6. › Suspension of registration
7. › Whether suspension 'in the public interest'
8. › Whether public interest assessed by reference to views of individual patients
9. › Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 58(1)(d)
1. Professions and Trades
2. › Health Care Professionals
3. › Medical Practitioners
4. › Disciplinary Proceedings
5. › Nature of disciplinary powers
6. › Whether disciplinary powers are protective or punitive
7. › Relevance of criminal sentencing principles to disciplinary proceedings
8. › Relevance of practitioner's refusal to admit guilt
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal from QCAT
3. › Error of principle in application of statutory test
4. › Whether Court of Appeal should substitute its own decision
5. › Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 153(2)(b)

Quick Take

The 'public interest' in s 58(1)(d) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) is to be assessed by broad judgment having regard to the nature of the profession of medicine and the demands and opportunities it presents for misconduct, not by reference to the views of individual patients. Criminal sentencing principles regarding rehabilitation and punishment are irrelevant to disciplinary proceedings, which are protective in nature. A practitioner's refusal to admit proven wrongdoing is a highly significant consideration in disciplinary proceedings as it may demonstrate a lack of insight necessary to be regarded as fit and proper to practise.